Science Gives Christians Upper Hand…

Says this article.

The statements attesting to the idea that Science actually helps Christianity were made after the premiere of the documentary “The Case for a Creator” (based on the book by Lee Strobel).

The best line in the article:

Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back into the intellectual public square.

Right… In fact, MENSA meetings are now being held in church.

Now, if the writer wanted to make her point, she would explain the intellectual/Scientific contributions of Christianity.

Instead, she gives us Intelligent Design. Michael Behe. The Bacterium Flagellum.

(You can read about how the flagellum evolved, contrary to what Behe says, here.)

She also states the “field of philosophy” as a place where Christians are emerging as the intellectual giants. (Yes, philosophy, with all of its hard-core research…)

Strobel adds to the fire by saying:

Today, science is pointing more powerfully to a creator than any other time… The most logical and rational step is to put my faith in the Creator that science tells me exists.

That would be so much more convincing if only there was any actual science involved…


[tags]Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, science, atheist, atheism, Christianity, Michael Behe, Intelligent Design, MENSA, church, bacterium flagellum[/tags]

  • http://transsurvivalist.blogspot.com Mark Plus

    What if science turns out to provide evidence in support of religions other than christianity? For example:

    Buddhists ‘really are happier’

  • Karen

    Man, there are so many things just plain wrong in that article, I don’t know where to start. The misinformation is stunning. And this has to be one of the worst ledes I’ve ever seen:

    Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.

    Umm… subject/verb agreement? avoid awkward phrasing? don’t make unsupported blanket statements? This writer needs to go back to her Strunk & White, STAT!

    Sad thing is, that’s all the “news” that a lot of fundamentalist believers (of all stripes, not just Christians) think they need. It’s a dangerous thing.

  • http://transsurvivalist.blogspot.com Mark Plus

    I find it ironic that until well into the 20th Century, scientists had accepted the implicit assumption of premodern cosmologies, including the bible’s, that we live in a relatively static universe. The discovery of the universe’s expansion came as a complete surprise, because as far as I know, nobody before then had even thrown out this idea as a wild-ass, evidence-free speculation. The idea certainly didn’t come from the bible and christian theology.

  • cautiousmaniac

    I picked up and leafed through Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator” yesterday. (At a book store that had “Darwin’s Black Box” but no actual books by Darwin…) He does a great job of interviewing Michael Behe, who is the most scientific of all of the ID proponents, and mentions the Cambrian explosion, but he does not interview anyone who:

    a) works in evolutionary biology
    b) works with the fossil record
    c) comes to a conclusion about science contradictory to that of Behe

    Which strikes me as rather…well, horrible and awful interviewing. I thought Lee Strobel was a journalist? In journalism school did they teach him to only ask questions of one side of debates?

    …particularly when the “debate” is between 99% of scientists who are objective and 1% of scientists who are subjective and can’t divorce their faith from their research?

    Note: I did not read the Cambrian explosion section of the book as much as I should have. Maybe Lee quoted some scientists who actually study it. More likely he quote-mined some people, e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, who have been quote-mined to death by both the creationist and ID movements. I will have to look to find out!

  • http://www.humaniststudies.org HumanistPR

    >>>Yes, philosophy, with all of its hard-core research…

    Uh oh. You have quite a few friends in the field of humanism with degrees in philosophy who might not take too kindly to that remark. ;)

  • spin sycle

    Why? Philosophy has never been a ‘hard’ science….

  • http://www.zarathustraandme.wordpress.com Johnny

    Why? Philosophy has never been a ‘hard’ science

    The statement in the article seemed to imply that if philosophy is not ‘hard-core’ or ‘hard’ science, then it’s intellectual developments are immediately discounted. I don’t see why that should automatically be the case.

    I think a better counter-argument against this author would be that she overstates her case. Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that’s because there were no prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago. You can breathe a sigh of relief that most of us in the cooky-hairbrained world of philosophy are materialists.

  • http://transsurvivalist.blogspot.com Mark Plus

    Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that’s because there were no prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago.

    We also have more academic philosophers in general than 50 years ago because many countries have invested heavily into higher education in recent decades.

  • http://inthenuts.blogspot.com King Aardvark

    cautiousmaniac: My wife made me read the whole damn book by Lee Strobel. Utter piece of crap. The Gish Gallop of lies hurt my brain.

    For those of you who want to know, the wikipedia article is a good jumping off point for what’s involved in it (though the whole POV rules are a bit annoying because they prevent me from writting about how utterly crappy it is). I never got around to writing the full review of it for my blog, but there are a few other good reviews out there, as long as you avoid those written by people who have no understanding of science and are utterly swayed by the book.

  • http://www.advicegoddess.com Amy Alkon

    Strobel is yet another intellectual dishonest shallow pond. I appeared on his show where he made much hay of his journalistic background. In fact, I believe they marketed him back then as a “New York Times reporter,” although I could be wrong — as if that gives somebody a pass (unfortunately, I think many other shallow ponds would believe that’s the case).

  • http://www.advicegoddess.com Amy Alkon

    “intellectually dishonest” — sorry, I’m half-asleep.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X